• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Second Test (Lord's, London) 28 June–2 July

S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
OK seen it now...don't love that it's out, he clearly scratches his crease as if to signify he knows it's the end of the over. But there's probably a rule that says the ball is not dead until over is called, so Bairstow is dopey. Plus there's footage showing Bairstow doing it to Australia, and Cummins said he was doing a lot. So I think it's fairly given out, and Bairstow/England have no leg to stand on. And Stokes - the incredible player that he is - shouldn't be invoking spirit. That's horse ****. Get rid of that stupid phrase, it shouldn't have relevance.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Ashes81 said:
I largely agree with this but there has to be an element in any sport for doing the right thing.

Say in the next WC final, 6 is needed off the final ball and the bowler delivers an underarm ball - legal yes - the correct thing to do - no.
Click to expand...
Underarm bowling was outlawed after Aus did it in 1981. It would be a no ball and free hit, and the bowler and captain would be investigated for match fixing
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
www.abc.net.au

Five quick hits — Bairstow's stumping against the 'spirit of the game' and Khawaja confronts Lord's members

The final day of the second Ashes Test at Lord's is filled with drama thanks to Ben Stokes, a rarely seen stumping of Jonny Bairstow and "disappointing" abuse from the Lord's members. Here are five big moments from a dramatic finale.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Interesting in the ABC video on this, watching Glenn McGrath who couldn't have possibly have poured more outrage into the Starc non-catch, leaning back nonchalantly and almost laughing dismissively through the Bairstow one, not caring a jot. I love Glenn McGrath but that is feeble. Such a big opinion when it's his side harmed, but not at all worried or interested in analysing when they benefit. Lame.
 
CartyDurham

CartyDurham

International Captain
I still like Carey as I enjoy his unfussy style behind the stumps

I think he’s elegant, which I like to see. Foakes is very similar but we won’t be seeing him demonstrate that in this series
 
hazsa19

hazsa19

International Regular
Socerer 01 said:
i also saw some claiming that Stokes would have withdrawn his appeal and that he said so after the match. if so why did he not withdraw the appeal last year when they duped de Grandhomme? Cummins is an equal hypocrite of course for what he said about the mankad and then defending this
Click to expand...
Ugh. Can we stop using completely different situations to justify this or accuse people of hypocrisy. Stokes said himself he’d withdraw it.

Ftr I’m kind of neutral on it. JB was a bit dopey you can add it to his growing list of blunders this series.
 
Neil Young

Neil Young

State Vice-Captain
SteveNZ said:
I haven't seen the dismissal so obviously I'll hold judgement on that.

But this is another massive red X in the column for spirit of cricket. Laws are laws, by and large they're not open to interpretation or present grey areas (although I'll acknowledge those exist). The spirit of cricket is the opposite. It's outdated. It's too dependent on match and series, situation, personalities, wider contexts, general pressure etc. And it means different things around the world. In India, spirit of cricket is very different to England, to NZ, to West Indies, to anywhere. So how the hell can you expect that to be relevant and have the ability to, in part, govern how the game is played? We're basically choosing to play by a different set of laws below one standard set of laws.

You can't expect Pat Cummins to take a moral high ground. The guy was pillared for any role he played in the Justin Langer scenario, he's been unfairly targeted as a do-gooder because he cares about ethical issues, even though he's been successful as Australian captain and massively so as a player, he still hadn't won the wider acclaim and hero status as most Aussie skippers get. Then he does his thing at Edgbaston, and all of a sudden he is that national hero. All of a sudden, in a heated environment of an Ashes series, he's expected to choose 'spirit' over letting the appointed officials do their job? And if they lose, then somehow England win the Ashes, how does that play out? **** that.

Spirit of cricket is a relic, it's not fit for purpose. Unfortunately, it'll probably take those dinosaurs in the Long Room today yelling abuse at Australia to die out before we can truly get past it.
Click to expand...
I get this view. But the spirit of the game is what differentiates cricket from other sport. Yeah, I get ultimately it's all about the winning, but cricket played in the right way - for me - is far superior than the bollocks from Carey today. And I'll happily be accused of being a dinosaur for holding this view. I can't abide football for all the underhand nonsense that goes on within the 'laws' of that particular sport. It's ugly.
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Woodster said:
That’s completely different though! Marnus was trying to gain an advantage by being out of his ground when batting, comparing apples with oranges my friend.

Although I do see the comical element with how far he missed the stumps by! 😂
Click to expand...
This is a fair point. I'm sure the MCC can move quickly to eliminate the Bairstow dismissal happening. Basically if at the point the keeper has it in his hands, the batsman is in his crease and clearly not trying to take an advantage (ie batting out of crease like Marnus) or trying to run, he can't be out. But Marnus can be out because he's taking an advantage by batting out of his crease.

However, I still don't feel sorry for Jonny who had a brain melt. I would like it to be cleared up so it can't happen again where there's no advantage being obtained. It feels yuck. As does the zoo in the Long Room. Incredibly ironic that these ham and egg'ers want to invoke spirit of cricket but can't control their emotions and abuse the **** out of a whole bunch guys who had no part in the dismissal (ie any Australian player who isn't Carey or Cummins), but don't do so to the umpires who ultimately made the call...oh yeah, and the MCC of whom they are a member of, who made the laws in the first place.
 
Third_Man

Third_Man

State 12th Man
Been out all day watching cricket rather than Bazball. Seems the Aussies came to play competitive cricket rather than under bazball rules.

Interesting to note on the video footage that Bairstow was in his crease - he would say marking it - when Carey underarmed the ball. Did he know that Bairstow was likely to just wander off at the end of the over? Why would you try to throw down the stumps when the batsman was clearly in the crease?

1.12 / 1.13 in the video: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66082091
 
S

Socerer 01

International Captain
hazsa19 said:
Ugh. Can we stop using completely different situations to justify this or accuse people of hypocrisy. Stokes said himself he’d withdraw it.

Ftr I’m kind of neutral on it. JB was a bit dopey you can add it to his growing list of blunders this series.
Click to expand...
Stokes didn’t even withdraw an appeal for a controversial dismissal in the 1st test against New Zealand where they had just dismissed the dude who had scored 100 and had momentum and you are expecting me to believe that he will do it in a home Ashes when there is danger of going 2 nil down at Lord’s just because he hinted so after the game when he has no consequences to say so??? no way man
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Neil Young said:
I get this view. But the spirit of the game is what differentiates cricket from other sport. Yeah, I get ultimately it's all about the winning, but cricket played in the right way - for me - is far superior than the bollocks from Carey today. And I'll happily be accused of being a dinosaur for holding this view. I can't abide football for all the underhand nonsense that goes on within the 'laws' of that particular sport. It's ugly.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't name call using the dinosaur term, that isn't fair. My bad.

My issue isn't the win at all costs. It's the fact that spirit of cricket is not a universally accepted term and it never will be. Countries are not raised the same and don't agree on this. So it'll always be an issue. And people's mentalities change. At 4-0 up, Cummins probably overturns that and plays the nice guy card. So I find it hard to live by a set of rules that it becomes different in different situations. Ben Stokes says he'd probably not uphold it. Brendon McCullum says that too, probably because he regrets running Murali out in Chch all those years ago. But how can we know, when push comes to shove, that they would? If it was 2 runs to get and the Ashes are to be won or lost, what a horrible situation to put someone in to have to decide based on spirit, when there is a large lawbook and three umpires appointed to handle that? Is there another sport in the world that governs on spirit? I don't know of one, certainly not to our extent.

Personal anecdote - I went to England as a 19 year old playing league cricket, obviously groomed on playing the way we do in NZ. I got absolutely torn to shreds for trying to backflick from short leg to run someone out who hadn't run but wasn't in their crease, because - VERY sternly - I was told 'we don't play cricket that way, it's not in the spirit of the game'. I'd literally never heard of the term, yet cricket was my life. That's my issue with spirit of cricket.
 
S

Socerer 01

International Captain
SteveNZ said:
I shouldn't name call using the dinosaur term, that isn't fair. My bad.

My issue isn't the win at all costs. It's the fact that spirit of cricket is not a universally accepted term and it never will be. Countries are not raised the same and don't agree on this. So it'll always be an issue. And people's mentalities change. At 4-0 up, Cummins probably overturns that and plays the nice guy card. So I find it hard to live by a set of rules that it becomes different in different situations. Ben Stokes says he'd probably not uphold it. Brendon McCullum says that too, probably because he regrets running Murali out in Chch all those years ago. But how can we know, when push comes to shove, that they would? If it was 2 runs to get and the Ashes are to be won or lost, what a horrible situation to put someone in to have to decide based on spirit, when there is a large lawbook and three umpires appointed to handle that? Is there another sport in the world that governs on spirit? I don't know of one, certainly not to our extent.

Personal anecdote - I went to England as a 19 year old playing league cricket, obviously groomed on playing the way we do in NZ. I got absolutely torn to shreds for trying to backflick from short leg to run someone out who hadn't run but wasn't in their crease, because - VERY sternly - I was told 'we don't play cricket that way, it's not in the spirit of the game'. I'd literally never heard of the term, yet cricket was my life. That's my issue with spirit of cricket.
Click to expand...
when Foakes and Stewart delay holding the ball against a spinner and remove the bails at the split second a batsman raises their foot its smart cricket and when they do it against someone like de Grandhomme its awareness but if someone else does the same to them then some of them invoke the ancient spirits of cricket from 19th century
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top